Ok, January 9th was my birthday. January 10th it’s back to business. No more warm fuzzies. Time to save America from those that wish to screw it up.
Repeal the 19th Amendment.
Yes girlfriend. I went there. Talk to the hand if you have a grievance.
Yeah, I know this could cost me some Jewish brunette frolicking, but the liberal ones don’t like me anyway and the conservatives will understand.
There is no reason for women to vote anymore. Voting is a responsibility, and the female gender, at least in New Hampshire, has proven that it has no interest in this sacred trust.
Women were supposed to be the thinking species, while men were emotional John Wayne types that went off half cocked without using their brains. No more.
Women were supposed to be liberated, and they were to embrace equality. Instead they chose vengeance.
Women were supposed to care about women’s issues. Apparently abortion was a woman’s issue until a couple days ago, when staunchly pro-choice candidates were defeated by a woman who vaccilates on the issue, as she does with every issue.
Women were to respect themselves. Instead, they chose somebody who, with help from her husband, treats women like dirt.
The worst stereotypes about women were revealed during the New Hampshire primary. What was learned in that dreadful state was that crying on cue works. Yelling about breaking into the boys club and then playing the victim card works. Substance means nothing.
I am sure elderly women are turning to their granddaughters and saying, “Honey, this proves that you can be empty inside, have no core values or beliefs, and spread venom, but if you evoke enough sympathy, you too can be President.”
I used to blame Hillary. I realize it is not just her. She has every right to be a phony, a woman who is more scripted than Jim Carrey in the “Truman Show.” Hillary’s whole life is a giant poll driven focus tested meal spun in a blander.
Yet the blame goes to the women who support her, because of why they support her. She is their sister.
The fact that she would slit their throats to get what she wants does not matter. She has the correct appendages.
Some may argue that many women simply agree with her philosophies. Her philosophies? About what?
She has been fighting for 35 years about something, she keeps reminding us. Yeah, and my Dad’s Army service, of which he told me about in some detail, qualifies me to be the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. My quarter of a century watching football qualifies me to be an NFL Head Coach. My shares of stock in various companies makes me a part owner, and therefore I should run the companies.
Yet Hillary, a woman who has succeeded at nothing more than getting her M.R.S. degree and riding her talented husband’s coattails, wants people to believe she has political accomplishments.
I am a republican, and am diametrically opposed to the policy prescriptions of John Edwards and Barack Obama. I disgree with what they stand for. Yet at least they stand for something (although barely at times).
They are both staunchly pro-choice on abortion. Yet women flock to Hillary. They are both good to their spouses, at least on the surface. There are no reports of either man verbally or physically abusing his spouse in fits of rage. Yet women support Hillary.
Hillary is not a feminist icon. She is to politics what Martina Navratilova was to tennis. Hillary charges the net, and plays the game like a man. She goes for blood, and has ruthlessly dispatched any woman that has stood in her way (In all fairness to Martina, she played by the rules, and deserved her accolades).
Sticking with tennis, Billie Jean King did not defeat Bobby Riggs by crying, or pretending to cry. She relied on her ability, and was an undisputed winner. She advanced the cause of women.
Hillary appeals to the worst in women. After all, how can women not be embarrassed by a woman married to a sexual predator who plays the role of feminist with such ease?
The answers are simple. Some women are blind. They simply know nothing about Hillary. They are apolitical, and she seems nice enough on tv (not really, but to them anyway).
Some women are willfully blind. They refuse to believe she could be that awful. She is one of them. They want her to be good on women’s issues.
Some women don’t care. They are amoral, if not immoral. Men ruled for so long, and now it is payback time.
So yes, an entire gender, at least in New Hampshire, has let a combinaton of stupidity, naievete, and vengence allow them to sell everything the feminist movement stood for and flush it down their collective pink frilly toilets.
There are plenty of women candidates who have actual records of accomplishment, many of whom I disagree with. Dianne Feinstein is wrong about virtually everything, but at least she works hard at her job. Some women may have no record of accomplishment, but at least have core beliefs, wacked out as those beliefs may be. Barbara Boxer may be insane, but at least she proudly stands behind her insanity. She does care about women (unless her cousin Bill Clinton is harassing them, or the victim is conservative).
Yet Hillary is the Paris Hilton of politics. She has nothing to say, and yet continues to speak. She demands to be seen as relevant, and enough people oblige. She cannot stay out of trouble, yet she fascinates just enough people to where she cannot be removed from page one.
Women fought for the right to be equal. If Hillary is the pinnacle of their success, then maybe men should start celebrating. On every level of life that matters, we took the women of the world and kicked their @sses. We got them to vote against their own best interests.
Men want low taxes and dead terrorists. We will support the candidate that will take his steel toe and jam it up Al Queda’s hide.
Women want…things…things that matter..and make us feel good…and warm and fuzzy…and yet they support an ice princess whose sole redeeming quality with regards to women is…(gimme a few weeks)
If this is the best women can do, than the last 80 years have been a waste. Stick them back in the kitchen where the worst damage they can do is to my dinner.
Yeah, some women are going to get angry with me. So what? I am angry that terrorists want to kill us, and they are more concerned with…whatever the heck it is they care about.
As for women who resent my words, my words won’t damage our nation. Your actions very well could. Your anger at my ranting is less threatening to society than your willingness to sacrifice principles you claim to have fought for since Eve tricked Adam and got us into this mess.
Bill Richardson happens to be Mexican. He did not run as a cross between JFK and George Lopez. Barack Obama happens to be black. He is going out of his way to appeal to white Americans, which prior black candidates failed to do.
Hillary is not a candidate who happens to be a woman. She is simply a woman candidate. She is an empty shell that is whoever you want her to be…except honest and genuine.
She did not fool me, nor did she fool most men. Unfortunately, we are only 45% of America. The remaining 55%…hang your collective bras in shame. At the rate you are going, you will be worse off than in 1900.
Since men slapping women would be seen as domestic violence, I hope the women will start slapping some sense into each other. Have some pride. Grow some dignity. Demand to be seen as human beings, not sheep.
I will not say you are “better than that.” I am not convinced.
As for Edwards and Obama, start crying immediately. Maybe women will buy it.
Otherwise, let’s take this whole experiment of women voting and throw it in the trash. It is one thing to vote for Margaret Thatcher, Angela Merkel, Golda Meir, or Benazir Bhutto. It is quite another thing to vote for a woman whose sole claim is to be a champion for women, when her entire life has shown her contempt for them. Given her contempt for men as well (and anybody who is not her actually), perhaps that is her version of equality. She can blame and condescend to both genders.
Hillary is a disaster. She is an enabler, In the exact way she let her husband behave the way he did, her supporters are doing the same for her. An entire gender in a state has enabled her.
The men running for President (republicans) want to save civilization. Hillary wants to sit and have tea with people, which is what her entire career has been. In a post 9/11 world, that doesn’t cut it.
If women cannot understand this…or do not think it is important…then stop talking…and stop voting.
Repeal the 19th Amendment, before these clueless dumb bunnies get us all killed.
Oh, and Hillary…”Iron my shirts.”
If you know how to work an iron that is. Of course you are domestic. You are not a feminist…not even close.
If any women were offended by this column, I am offended by your voting patterns. I can send you my crocodile tears in the mail, since according to female voters, that works every time.
eric
I think you need to email Vox for some advice on how to handle what’s about to come your way. Typically, it involves how you’re sexually frustrated and no woman will ever want to sleep with you. I think he just posts a picture of his wife, and that usually settles it.
As for Billie Jean King, she didn’t advance anything other than the idea that old people can’t play tennis. Had she beaten Arthur Ash or whoever was the men’s champion at the time, that would have been something.
I got beat in tennis by an older lady this summer: http://www.rightnation.us/forums/blog/mr__naron/index.php?showentry=2074
This only proved that I suck at tennis and nothing more.
Dude, dont let her get to you like this.
Shes her own worst enemy, just give it a little time and she’ll crash and burn.
There is so much dirt on her that no one has even brought up yet.
I can faithfully say; ” It will get brought up !”
Lest we forget, even though Billery is 100% woman, Ed words is 100% trial lawyer, and Odrama is only 50% black – he’s also 50% white… Don’t let NH get you down – it wasn’t the females who stormed the polls – it was angry men who know she won’t win but may have an ego large enough to run a third party bid… then any of the Aw shucks Huck, on-the-cane McCain, or snit fit Mitt crowd would slide in… Your points are well-taken though – we don’t need a divisive, self-serving Ms. President but someone, anyone, who can bring the country together and simultaneously ensure we have resources to prosecute the war on terror.
“Get us all killed,” “war on terror,” bla bla bla. Do you guys live in fear all the time?
Oh, and Chris is right about the King/Riggs match. Riggs was well past his prime at the time. Not the King wasn’t good, but men have a much harder serve and swing.
JMJ
Yea, but we still dont even know Kings gender. So the whole arguement is moot.
Jersey, you like to profess logic. So wouldnt it be logicall to be weary of the last thing that attacked you ?
We fear a true and proven enemy that has claimed to be this themselves. And have proven that they are trying to do it again, even said so. And are saying it more and more frequently
It is not “impending doom” such as gerbil warming or ” the collapse of the country”
Or some made up fear like ” we are loosing our rights” and bla bla bla (BLA)
I consider it common sense to be prepared for the inevitable. As an example, my high school daugher was studying Friday night, then again on Sunday night. I asked what tests she had coming up. She responded that no tests were announced, but two of her teachers like to surprise the students on Mondays. I suppose one could argue that she is living in fear, but I subscribe to the notion she is living in reality…which is why she passed two tests this past Monday ,and other students were “surprised” at the unannounced exams. OK, so the Beirut bombings, USS Cole, Twin Towers, et al were surprises, but I now prepare for Mondays.
Billie Jean sure looks an awful lot like Hillary… or maybe they just look awful…
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – Web Reconnaissance for 01/10/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
Guys, it’s one thing to be weary, it’s another thing to blow trillions of dollars and thousands of lives and go to all out war againt a friggin’ international organized crime syndicate! It reminds me of that old Monty Python skit, “Mosquito Hunters.” Do you guys remember that one?
Here, refresh your memories… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBGlO_5AT-A&feature=related
That’s what I think of the stupid, paranoid, wrong, silly, failed, useless GWOT.
JMJ
Great movie about little critter hunting. If the known terrorists were as benign as ants, mosquitoes, and moths, I would agree. Saddam violated at least 14 UN Sanctions and many more Presidential Sanctions, had a verifiable nuclear, chemical, and biological WMD program, and the Taliban signed a pact with AQI a couple years ago. Many uninformed people didn’t believe we should go after Hitler, either. Even if you ignore people in the know and subscribe to CNN and NYT’s garbage, what do you call VBIED that kill and maim 30, 40, or 60 people? Weapons of Minor Distraction? Oh, they are only doing it because we are occupying their country… but at least they are doing it there…because we weren’t occupying their country when they hit the Cole, Beirut, Twin Towers, et al… all old arguments but no less relevant today than five years ago. Here we go with invincible ignorance again… paranoid? failed? useless? You don’t have to be fearful BECAUSE others are preparing FOR you. Enjoy that comfort.
Well, ceratinly Al, you see my analogy. If Graham Chapman and Eric Idle are using tanks and bazookas to blow up mosquitos, Bush and Co are using trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of troops, contractors and mercenaries to kill “terrorists.”
“Saddam violated at least 14 UN Sanctions…”
So what? Why is it that the only time I ever hear conservatives pay any respect to the UN is when they bring this up? Since when does the UN matter to you? And, if you’re going to bring that up, why not bring up the fact that the UN still didn’t want war against Saddam?
“…Presidential Sanctions,…”
What the heck are they?
“…had a verifiable nuclear, chemical, and biological WMD program,…”
What??? What are you talking about??? They had no such programs, had shut them all down years earlier, and no evidence otherwise has since come to the fore. I knew that before the war, and I’m just a regular shmuck from Jersey. Oh sure, I heard all the BS fear-mongering from various quarters, but I never believed it. It made no sense. Why would Saddam risk his hide that way? It would be suicide. Saddam was not some suicidal ideologue. He was a standard, boiler-plate Thrid World, second rate dictator. Why would he, and all the rest of the Baathists and military take such a huge risk? It makes no sense. It runs contrary to the MO of every dictator since time immemorium. Of course, he said</e. he had such capabilities, at least in so many words, but that is exactly the MO of the standard dictator who is in fear of losing power. I still can’t believe how many people fell for this, and how many still do. I blame cognitive dissonance and American anti-intectualism.
“You don’t have to be fearful BECAUSE others are preparing FOR you. Enjoy that comfort.”
Oh puh-lease. This is like when people say, “You enjoy your freedoms because the soldiers are out there protecting it!” I call BULL. Aside, perhaps, WWII, our nation has not faced an existential threat that required our soldiers to “protect our freedom” since the early 19th century. Even the Civil War was only an existential threat to our contiguousness.
You’ve got to come up with some new arguments.
JMJ
I doubt you have ever been in Top Secret briefings behind the vaults in FORSCOM HQs. I have. No, that doesn’t make me smarter than anyone else – there are a number of ignorant people and nuts who have clearances. And, I doubt you have been to Taji, Iraq and toured Chemical Ali’s chemical manufacturing facility. I have. One of the reasons you are in such denial is because you seem to accept NYTs as gospel and can’t understand that our leaders, especially our President, wouldn’t have been so stupid to invade, and certainly wouldn’t continue GWOT if all the facts weren’t there. These are facts that you, as a common citizen, wouldn’t be privy to. Do you think we would have record re-enlistment rates, especially among those who have already been, if most (not all) the troops didn’t support what we are doing? They have seen the enemy up close and personal. So have I.
During World War II — the Japanese developed a way to demoralize the American forces.
Psychological warfare experts developed a message they felt would work.
They gave the script to their famous broadcaster “Tokyo Rose” and every
day she would broadcast this same message packaged in different ways,
hoping it would have a negative impact on American GI’s morale.
What was that demoralizing message?
It had three main points:
1. Your President is lying to you.
2. This war is illegal.
3. You cannot win the war.
Does this sound familiar?
Hillary, Harry, John, Teddy, Nancy, and etc. have picked up on the
same message and are broadcasting it on CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc., to
our nation’s citizens and our troops! The only difference is that they
claim to support our troops before they demoralize them.
Come to think of it, didn’t Tokyo Rose tell the troops she was on their side, too?
“I doubt you have ever been in Top Secret briefings behind the vaults in FORSCOM HQs. I have. No, that doesn’t make me smarter than anyone else – there are a number of ignorant people and nuts who have clearances. And, I doubt you have been to Taji, Iraq and toured Chemical Ali’s chemical manufacturing facility. I have.”
Well, that explains a lot. You’re one of them. You’re one of the people who helped get us into this monumental disaster. Thanks a lot. I hope your great grandchildren don’t mind the debt you’ve left with them.
“One of the reasons you are in such denial is because you seem to accept NYTs as gospel…”
Don’t bait me, Al. that’s just a stupid remark. I do NOT take the NYT as “gospel” (nor any other gospel as gospel). I take nothing on faith. And I already told you that I find the Times rather mainstream. If anything, I think they were far too complacent and swept up in the rush to war. Good investigative journalism could well have averted this unmitigated disaster, but the Fourth Estate let us down.
“…and can’t understand that our leaders, especially our President, wouldn’t have been so stupid to invade, and certainly wouldn’t continue GWOT if all the facts weren’t there.”
Bush is stupid. I think that’s pretty plain to the eye. But he’s just a puppet IMHO, so who cares. Cheney and others did know, but they went ahead anyway – and I think they did it with malice aforethought. If you recall, after the Gulf War there were many detractors of GHWB’s decision to not invade Iraq and depose Saddam. Cheney was asked about this at the time and basically said that such an invasion and occupation would be a quagmire. Sure enough, Cheney seems to have been a prime motivator for the invasion in 2003. So what happened? It looks to me like he knew darn well what he was getting into and did it anyway – for the profits of Big Oil and the MIC. It was a tax revenue grab scheme of epic proportions.
“These are facts that you, as a common citizen, wouldn’t be privy to.”
I’m an avid student of modern history, was a history major, and am married to a history teacher. I’m pretty well up-to-date on things. These “facts” you point up have since been shown to be phony propaganda. I was not suprised. Sometimes a little common sense, and realistic worldview, goes a long way.
“Do you think we would have record re-enlistment rates, especially among those who have already been, if most (not all) the troops didn’t support what we are doing?”
Again, Puh-lease. Enlistment rates are abyssmal. If the war was just and fought correctly, that wouldn’t be a problem. Reenlistment always goes up in a time of war. Young men are drawn to the comradery with their brothers in arms. They feel they must stand with them. It’s always the case. If you have military experience and a reasonable education, you’d know this. This is not opinion, this is fact.
And don’t give me the line that the media is somehow a proxy propagandizer for terrorists. That’s just silly, blind patriotism. If you think information is bad then you may as well just come out now and proclaim your Stalinism. This is the same silly argument people still make about the all too familar and now repeating failure of Vietnam. We dropped more explosive tonnage on that poor countruy than was dropped in all of WWII. 3,000,000 Vietnamese died. 58,000 Americans died. Billions of dollars were squandered and countless lives were ruined. And yet we still lost. Why? Because we did not belong there. Foreign occupiers always are driven off in the end. It’s just a matter of time. It had nothing to do with the media, or liberals, or Jane Fonda, and everything to do with the will and perseverence of the Vietnamese. It was a bad, unjust, colonial war and we lost it. It happens every time. It will happen again.
JMJ
It took me two full days, but I finally figured out, via the exchanges between you and Micky and this latest between you and me, that you are likely a closet Republican or Libertarian who is acting as a straight man for people who actually have first hand knowledge and/or are willing to conduct research and offer truth versus rhetoric. Just as the ignernt libs chant, “Bush lied, people died”, we critical thinkers need to remind dullards daily that Congress, not President Bush, voted to go to war. Whereas some of us are more deductive, you seem to ascribe to inductive reasoning. God bless your dumb-like-a-fox routine that allows us opportunity to get this message out. And, you are a master of the Straw man, Red Herring, and Hasty Generalization. It is a masterful way to get constructive thinkers to opt out of emotionalism. Great job.
Eric,
Rest assured, not all women are like the bozo brains in NH. They are not my ‘sisters’ and that *itch does not speak for me, nor my genuine sisters. However, I can fully understand your sentiment, and even pondered your suggestion briefly yesterday.
BTW, I love your blog, and thank you for it.
Jersey, it doesnt have as much to do with the UN as it does direct attacks on Americans, and the fact that Saddam left us no choice by being so vague in his relevations as to wheter he had actually dismantled his nuclear and chemical systems or not.
The info was not just from American sources it came from 21 other countries and was deemed credible by most dems as well as cons.
We were shot at 1600 times in no fly zones established after the first gulf war.
THIS WAS AN ACT OF WAR !
Paying Palestinians 2500 bucks to send their kids to Afghanistan as homicide bombers, attacking our troops directly.
THAT WAS AN ACT OF WAR.
Not mention the million plus violations of human rights taking place , which for some reason the moonbats didnt see as important as Darfur or the slaughters taking place in south Africa. Why werent the human sheilds over there earlier trying to do something about that ?
And you know that by now had we not done something you and your bleeding heart libs would be screaming bloody murder by now.
Clinton Bombed a stinking pill factory and called it quits
A persons level of dissapointment is always relevant in size to their level of expectations.
We did not wait for that simple reason.
The incredible expectations the left had for Saddam would of only lead to great dissapointment, called death.
Yes Eric, she is an empty suit. I take comfort from the fact that she can’t possibly win a general elction. I think Hillbilly has enough unsavory stuff in her past to keep her out of the oval office. Obama might have a chance given the voter’s disgust with the Republican behavior lately, and given the fact that he has no background. Edwards the ambulance chaser has no chance. Kerry’s endorsement may help slap him down. Others may be seduced by Obama’s rhetoric, and this worries me. He is truly a silver-tongued devil. The inability of the GOP to settle on a candidate illustrates the disarray of the party. If we can settle on someone, anyone, we can beat Hillbilly. I for one, will hold my nose and vote for ANY Republican before any Democrat.
Eric, I too am right there with you. I feel disgusted at this person masquerading as a person of substance or importance and as for the women who are voting for her solely because she’s a woman? Frankly, they need to be b**** slapped back to reality.
People have asked me why I won’t vote for her and I tell them, in no uncertain terms–I want a MAN who can sit across from a negotiating table, look a terrorist or an enemy in the eye (preferably while lighting his stogie and blowing smoke in their faces) and make that enemy know, just from the look in our president’s eye, we will not tolerate their nonsense.
They then ask me, but she’s a woman so wouldn’t you vote for a woman? Isn’t it time we had a woman? Or do you just think a woman couldn’t do the job? And I tell them, no, I won’t vote for a woman just because she’s a woman; a woman is more than capable of doing the job–PROVIDED IT’S THE RIGHT WOMAN, a woman along the lines of Maggie Thatcher (a true woman, a lady with a sheath of velvet over a core of steel) and not a tramp (as the hildebeast is) and yes, this country is ready for a woman given the above proviso.
Besides, the middle eastern countries have shown their complete misogyny–why would they deal with hildebeast? They won’t.
Yep, it’s time to smack down on the idiot women who can’t tell substance from fluff.
Al,
I have to admit that I’m really not sure how to respond, but let me take a crack.
“…you are likely a closet Republican or Libertarian who is acting as a straight man for people who actually have first hand knowledge and/or are willing to conduct research and offer truth versus rhetoric.”
I actually was a libertarian Republican (they used to call us “liberal Republicans,” as Rudy Giuliani once ran as for mayor) until my very early twenties. But then I grew up and went progressive and liberal.
As strange as it sounds, I was a hard-drinking, fast-dealing, drug-abusing, womanizing, starving rock musician for a long time, and though I was a very active kid, and though I left school very young and only did two years of college, I always had a voracious apetite for learning about the world around me. I was very lucky to have educated, intellectual parents and a very impressive extended family. I was raised on quality conversation, media, music and literature.
“…Congress, not President Bush, voted to go to war.”
Well, they did, and they didn’t. They gave him “authority” to have enough rope to hang himself – and the rest of us – in a monumental display of political cowardice, but they didn’t technically voted to go to war, or declare war, for whatever that’s worth.
“Whereas some of us are more deductive, you seem to ascribe to inductive reasoning.”
Nice try. I make it a priority to question even what I think I know, I do not try to rationalize what I believe. I leave all that to the religious, the partisan, the racists, the misogynists, the greedy and the stupid.
“It is a masterful way to get constructive thinkers to opt out of emotionalism. Great job.”
Again, nice try, but you’ll have to do better than that to pluck my strings. I do appreciate constructive thinking, whatever that is, but I think of emotion as a description of metal state and not a living, ensouled thing. Emotion is simply the projection of thought, Al.
JMJ
Micky,
“Jersey, it doesnt have as much to do with the UN as it does direct attacks on Americans, and the fact that Saddam left us no choice by being so vague in his relevations as to wheter he had actually dismantled his nuclear and chemical systems or not.”
So, you think Saddam was a threat to America? Really? Still? They were under seige! Of course they didn’t like it. But what threat does a state under seige pose? Really? I didn’t like the status quo either, but is this really better? Really???
If you were to apply your standards for preemptive war universally, we’d be at war with probably a dozen nations right now. Do you realize that?
JMJ
JMJ, formal education is over-rated – I didn’t get a bachelors until I was 48. Literature and experience are paramount. I wouldn’t dream of trying to pluck your strings – you are the musician, and I’m tone deaf… but I’m not deaf to some realities I have experienced first hand – things that the media won’t touch because “conventional wisdom” (i.e. yellow journalism) has established falsehoods as truths. For what it’s worth, strong evidence suggests that Saddam did, indeed, destroy about a quarter of his WMD. He sold another quarter. The Russians moved another quarter out right before we invaded, and the final quarter were buried in Syria. I choose to believe this because there is more evidence supporting it than rhetoric disproving it. If new information surfaces, I will adjust my beliefs. However, if Hillary turns out not to be 100% woman, I still won’t support her or the socialist policies she supports.
“If you were to apply your standards for preemptive war universally, we’d be at war with probably a dozen nations right now. Do you realize that?”
Thats a load of crap and you know it.
How many other countries were doing what Saddam did /
The standard is actually very high. We jumped through alot of hoops before we even went after Saddam , so dont act as if we just went off half cocked. There were so many diplomatic opportunities for Saddam to take.
Name me a dozen Nations, which ones ?
I never said he was a threat to America, so dont put words in my mouth.
He had violated peace treaty agreements by shooting at our planes and sending bombers to afghanistan and selling the food he got from the oil and was not complying with his agreed obligations.
Basically, he violated his probabtion ! Which meant by previous agreement that we were allowed to go in and get him LEGALLY !
What threat does a state under seige pose?
Do I have to explain that to you ? Collapsing nations usally invade their neighbors, like say, oh, Kuwait ? Iran ? , Israel ? (which would of cleaned his clock)
“…For what it’s worth, strong evidence suggests that Saddam did, indeed, destroy about a quarter of his WMD. He sold another quarter. The Russians moved another quarter out right before we invaded, and the final quarter were buried in Syria.”
Look man, I figured Saddam had something. Every good dictator does. And I figured it was scattered with the the war. But I still don’t see the threat – or at least not nearly a threat that would merit war. We are the superpower, they are the second-rate dictatorship. I just don’t see the threat. It makes no sense. Unless you can argue the sense of all this to me, I am at a loss to understand why we went to war – WMD or not.
“… I still won’t support (Hillary) or the socialist policies she supports.”
Okay, please name a single “socialist” policy of her’s. And please, please do it this time. Hillary Clinton strikes me as about as mainstream as the flow of the Nile, what tremendous socialistic change would a Hillary presidency bring to you and I?
JMJ
Hello:
I am guest live blogging from the Debate tonight in Myrtle Beach, SC. Join us if you can on http://www.nowpublic.com
Albert N. Milliron
Politisite
Micky,
“How many other countries were doing what Saddam did /”
It depends on the meaning of “did.” LOL! If you mean, ‘How many other countries were complicit or sympathetic with the 9/11 attack,’ we’d be at war with everyone from Morocco to Indonesia. You know that.
“The standard is actually very high. We jumped through alot of hoops before we even went after Saddam , so dont act as if we just went off half cocked.”
Actually, I am more than quite convinced that “we went off half cocked.” It was the admionistartion taking advantage of a nation that was reacting to 9/11 and human security.
“I never said he was a threat to America, so dont put words in my mouth.”
Okay, so why did we go to war?
JMJ
Nobody thought Al Queda was a substantial threat.
lets quite playing games, We know that the intent was to not let Saddam elevate his defenses to a point where he was a threat, ONE MORE TIME ! PAY ATTENTION !
He was not a threat to the country yet ! But after 911 we decided that we had to change our approach. No more chances. Look what happened when we gave Al Queda all that rope ?
God ! It just amazes me that there are people who cant see the resolve in concluding that we could ot wait to find out the hard way again.
Just violating the peace treaties alone was good enough for me.
“We know that the intent was to not let Saddam elevate his defenses to a point where he was a threat, ONE MORE TIME ! PAY ATTENTION !”
Achtung! LOL! Okay, okay, I hear ya’.
“…after 911 we decided that we had to change our approach.”
Yes. I’ve noticed. Too bad 9/11 changed nothing except for the lives of the victims. As you conservatives always remind us, terrorism is not new, and 9/11 was bound to hapen eventually. This is all true, and therefore 9/11 really didn’t change anything.
And if every projective nation imposed it’s will and desire, we’d be right back to the feudal days, and on a global scale. Not good.
JMJ
Oh well, after the teenage nurse screwed up my enema I should just chalk up the fact that it was going to happen anyway and the only life it changed was mine.
So I guess we should of just kicked back and let the inevitable happen again, right ?
Thats one of the dumber things you’ve said jersey.
And how the &^%$ on earth do know that 911 was bound to happen ?
If some one drove by and launched a grenade at your house do you mean to tell me nothing in your house would change?
You would not go out and down the street looking for the bastard ?
I would cruise the whole neighborhood looking for them.
Your last sentence is subjective to any comparison ?
JMJ, Talk about baiting someone!! Is it any surprise she wrote a book called “It Takes a Village…”? I am a strong proponent of family support, and my daughter and son-in-law are living with us, and if I had my way, my Mom would, too… but that’s family and a personal choice – not a governmental action. She has consistently advocated raising taxes…”We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good” (reference tax cuts, citing that most of the people who benefit from tax cuts don’t need it, so funds should be distributed from the haves to have nots)… I agree in re-distribution of wealth – but only on MY terms through MY church or charity.
“We just can’t trust the American people to make those types of choices. Government has to make those choices for people” (reference separate, privatized health care accounts). “I am a fan of social policies you find in Europe” (in context of, she doesn’t trust people to take proper care of their children, so she supports the traveling nurse program in Europe (governmental intervention into private lives). These are merely three examples. She has been cited numerous times that we need to re-distribute wealth. We can’t be far off on her – I know you are playing straight man on this one…
I don’t get your first point there, Micky.
I never said we should do nothing – just nothing stupid, like going to war with Iraq.
“And how the &^%$ on earth do know that 911 was bound to happen ?”
Well, I certainly wasn’t surprised. Were you?
“You would not go out and down the street looking for the bastard ?”
Yeah, but I wouldn’t invade his relatively innocent neighbor’s house to do it.
Get it?
JMJ
If you’re going to live and thrive and do business in a village, Al, you’d be at a tremendous advantage if you were raised by one. It does take a village, unless of course you are a feral animal.
JMJ
I’m not going to do this debate anymore jersey, because as usual you are full of questions and assumptions and accuasations that cant be proven.
I’ve had this debate with you at least 5 times now and have consistently proved all the same arguements wrong over and over.
First is was “bush lied’ and his buddys all got contracts. We went to war so blackwater could have jobs. He lied about the threat, the oil , WMDs he made things up. We were attacked because of Bush etc…
You proved none of it.(nothing) If you really want these answers go back in the archives a couple months and spare all of us the tedious task of educating you again.
Micky, tell me where I’m wrong. It all seems pretty plain to me.
JMJ
JMJ said;
“Yeah, but I wouldn’t invade his relatively innocent neighbor’s house to do it.”
Relativly innocent ? Relative to what ? He was relevant to not sitting around waiting for another 911, hows that for relevance ?Saddam was anything but innocent. Which goes back to all the facts pertaining to his numerous violations as I have pointed out till I’m freeking blue in the face.
JMJ said;
“Well, I certainly wasn’t surprised. Were you?
I wasnt surprised when I reviewed Clintons record. That intelligence was there for him in plain sight. The first trade tower attack, embassys, the cole. I wasnt suprised they tried, they always have. But that threat was there long before Bush. And he took 100 times more action than Clinton or his father did.
Bless the man.
JMJ said;
“Micky, tell me where I’m wrong. It all seems pretty plain to me.”
Go back in the archives just a couple months. You’re asking these questions just to be a punk. You know I’ve answerd them plenty of times.
And I have consistantly shut you down each time. To the point where you did not have anymore questions and resorted back to “well thats just my opinion”
Saddam Hussein posed no threat like 9/11 to America.
I wasn’t surprised by 9/11 either.
You have never shut me down.
JMJ
I suppose that since I wasn’t raised in a village, I am a feral animal. Great logic there, but it doesn’t get me excited; it simply re-validates faulty logic.
At a recent rural elementary school meeting in North Florida, Hillary asked the kids and the audience for total quiet. Then, in the silence, she started to slowly clap her hands, once every few seconds. Holding the audience in total silence, she said into the microphone, “Every time I clap my hands, a child in America dies from gun violence.”
A young voice from the front of the crowd pierced the quiet:
“Well stop clapping,… you stupid witch!” That was probably the village idiot…
Constantly shut you down.
A guy on your own blog was keeping score and said he enjoyed watching you and your buddy get t-bagged by me constantly.
Anyone with an honest bone in their body can go back on every thread for the last 6 months and see that I have pummeled you with facts and documents and writtings from reliable known sources. And 9 times out of ten all you have is emotional opinions and rhetoric.
Basic example would be that its me who has had the last word almost always on every thread, rendering you speechless and at a loss for more imaginative unsubstantiated crap.
I soak you with information, and all you do s ask more dumb questions and put forth more accusations.
Example;
Wheres your proof that Bush lied about Iraq ?
And I dont want to hear this crap”everyone knows its true”
Thats it !
i,ve had Ron Paul in the background for almost an hour now.
I am convinced that he is the biggest cry baby candidate I have ever heard.
Will someome just smack him and tell him to compose himself ?
He always sounds like hes on the virge of tears.
Al, the Hillary incident about clapping is totally false. The first versions of the story involved the singer Bono and were equally untrue.
Check out http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/bono.asp for the details.
Posting false stories like this, or making statements about record enlistment rates without pointing out that the goals are being met because the military lowered their recruitment target numbers, have had to significantly increase recruitment and retention bonuses, have declining numbers of high school graduates and lower scores on skills and physical tests, and soaring desertion rates, doesn’t make us “common citizens” feel very comfortable with those behind the bunkers with Top Secret clearances.
Why resort to stereotyping? Not all women are ignorant boobs, and not all men are wise electors. What we need is an effective voter qualification examination to screen out the ignorant and incompetent voters.
All those idiots who believe that government is Santa Claus should be screened out. So should the dupes who can’t detect false logic such as that used to promote the “global warming” crisis.
The distinction should be merit, not gender!
Greg, I apologize if you thought the post about the hand-clapping was meant to be true – it was supposed to be a little satire so I could segue into the village idiot comment. As you know, when we have to explain humor, it takes the fun out. I will figure out a way to qualify future stabs at humor.
Please don’t use the same straw man tactics JMJ uses by misquoting me. I wrote “re-enlistment” rates – not enlistment rates. Big difference. I will concede two things. First, i want it both ways – I want you to take my comments seriously yet inject humor. Maybe we can’t have it both ways. Second, as JMJ pointed out, re-enlistment rates are often higher during wartime because battle buddies do feel an obligation for one another. Having said that, this is only a recent phenomenom because the re-enlistment rates in Vietnam and Korea weren’t this way, and thousand more were being killed and wounded while serving next to their buddies. Many of today’s Soldiers not only feel an obligation to their battle buddies, they also feel they are accomplishing something good in the Middle East, and they are “preparing for Monday” because they don’t buy the “harmless terrorist” ink and refuse to be surprised by patterns of behavior.
It’s true that test scores and physcial conditioning of recruits are down. There are also more waivers for civil offenses. Having said that, the scores still represent a “higher than average” for Joe Citizen. There are many reasons for the seeming lower enlistment rates. First, as previously mentioned, the Tokyo Rose media has painted a bleak picture for the uneducated citizen. Second, not many people really want to join to service to go fight – there’s a sheep, sheep dog, and wolf story behind that one. Third, in spite of repeated dooms dayers and spotty market results, the economy has been great for many years, and empirical data show that enlistments increase during poor economic times. Finally, we are not only transitioning our military into the future force, making it a more technologically savvy organization, we are also growing the numbers. So, if we needed 100 more fresh bodies yesterday, we need 110 more today. Given the abovementioned challenges, it is prudent to offer incentives, and only time will tell whether some of the lower standards adversely affect outcomes.
Al,
“I suppose that since I wasn’t raised in a village, I am a feral animal.”
Where the heck were you raised? On a farm in the middle of nowhere? Were you raised by a nomadic hermit? Did you go to school? The doctor’s? Play sports?
Anyone who say it doesn’t take a village is truly a village idiot.
Humans are social anioimals who live in groups. As we have evolved so in turn have these groups, merging, moving, evolving, devolving, gradually into civilizations. The units of these civilizations start with the family, then the local community, then the greater society at large, and one day, just maybe, the world – that is unless the xenophobic conservatives blow it up first in the name of antisocialism.
Micky,
“Constantly shut you down.
A guy on your own blog was keeping score and said he enjoyed watching you and your buddy get t-bagged by me constantly.”
Okay Micky, whatever you say. If it makes you feel good…
“Wheres your proof that Bush lied about Iraq?”
Here’s a good list: http://www.alternet.org/story/16274
Here’s another: http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/07/22_lies.html
Here’s another: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040329/scheer
Here’s another: http://www.bushlies.net/
I could probably find a few thousand more. You know, there’s a little thing called the “google.” You should try it sometime.
JMJ
Lest this rebuttal fails the Snope-a-dope or Webster’s test, I inadvertently left an “s” off “thousands” and misspelled “phenomenon” with an “m”. If only she had started clapping sooner and faster…
JMJ, I concede. The village is made up of mostly sheep, being protected from the wolves by sheepdogs… and the ostrich. Which begs the question, who’s the village idiot… the one foolishly protecting the masses from their ignorance or the supine ovine drowning in the rain… Baa Baa Arf Arf (BaaArf)
Jersey.
The first link says nothing about conclusive evidence that Bush lied.
It is all no more relevant than him lying about WMDs. As a matter of fact I reviewed the ten lies they speak of and its all subjective to perception and belief and flawed intelligence.
==================================================================
“The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program … Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.” — President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.”
First of all he said “indicates” not “proves”
There is a huge difference between indicating and proving. And yes, Iraq has attempted to buy the aluminum tubes, doesn’t mean they got them.
Once again, his statement was not meant to deceive seeing as I’m reading plain English it could not do that. His statement was relevant to the intelligence at hand.
==================================================================
“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” — President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.”
C’mon Jersey ! This is simple !
Hes just repeating what the British government told him, its not Bush’s lie ! Now is it ?
==================================================================
“[The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade.” — CIA Director George Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002 and echoed in that evening’s speech by President Bush.”
Once again. You need to restudy the English language Jersey.
It says Bush was echoing Tenets statement.
Bush’s statement is all subjective to the info at hand.
==================================================================
“We’ve learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases … Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.” — President Bush, Oct. 7.
This was never proven or disproved. The training supposedly took place in a no fly zone being patrolled by allied forces (brits) that Iraq had no control over.
The problem is that Iraq did have control over this are, just not in the air, that is all.
==================================================================
“We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States.” — President Bush, Oct. 7.
How is this a lie ? I don’t get it. Its no secret Saddam had drones.
All he says is that he is “concerned” that Iraq was exploring aerial attack methods on the US.
==================================================================
“We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they’re weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established.” — President Bush, Feb. 8, 2003, in a national radio address.
This is the intelligence that was brought about by 21 other countries and inspectors, And that most of the democratic Congress based their decision on to go to war.Its old and dead already.
==================================================================
All the above comes from a very bias Bush hating rag. http://www.alternet.org/story/16274?page=2 The kind you criticized when we debated the NY Times. You called it “yellow low brow journalism”
Yet now you find it O.K to use cheap slanted journalism to try and make your invalid points and claims..
Lets move on to your next link, shall we ?
=================================================================
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/07/22_lies.html
These are all identical claims presented in the previous link.
Same crap.
But this website is laughable at best. I’ve seen better cheerleading websites.
Really Jersey, you talk about how you get your news from all these impeccable sources.
You call this slime site top notch journalism ?
==================================================================
This is a student website. Gee this oughta be enlightening and just chock full of hardcore news. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040329/scheer
“Bush again dished out the fundamental lie that the war and occupation of Iraq can reasonably be linked to the “war on terror,”
This is not a lie !!!!!!!!! When Its proven that Saddam was sending homicide bombers to Afghanistan its not only reasonable ! Its accurate !
And the authors assertions are only based on opinion , not fact !
This site gives 4 more instances where Jersey said they say Bush lied. If you read your own links Jersey you will see that the remaining 4 are not about Bush.
==================================================================
http://www.bushlies.net/
These guys are clowns with all the same accusations as the above sites. And once again base their accusations on nothing but perception opinions and canned hatred.
==================================================================
Let me explain a couple things to you Jersey.
If you had to prove in a court of law that bush lied and you tried to pass this crap off as evidence you would be disbarred. Its all bias Bush hate sites.
You say that you get your news from better sources than most Americans, re; C-Span , NY Times etc…
Looks to me like you actually are having a hard time finding a real credible source to back up these arguements of yours.
And second of all.
You got some punk arrogant nerve even suggesting that I should use Google.
I am on record here on this blog as routinely and consistently blasting you with facts from sources I have been Googling long before I met you.
But I do applaud you for finally once trying to do your own research. But it is really you who should learn how to do the googling, because you suck at it. And you dont even qualify or read your own links. Otherwise you would of not triple posted links with the same repeated accusations
Eric,
I have been reading some blogs, that think there was something “funny” with the numbers up in New Hampshire. I have read where the handcount shows something entirely different then the results posted. Dirty Tricks in New Hampshire, how does the MSM explain how they got it sooo wrong? They just adjusted their numbers and kept moving along…..hmmm…I was discussing this with someone who put “how Hillary Clinton stole the New Hampshire primary” in google or something like that, you would be suprised at the results. I had this link sent to me by an Obama supporter. What’s going on up in the Granite state? When the numbers were so far off – doesn’t it make you wonder just a little bit? Especially when there were Clintonista involved.
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5530
Eric,
Take a look at this it has the hand count for New Hampshire, I don’t know where would one go to find the original hand count numbers the “official” this might be a left website, I can’t tell the adds want Cheney impeached. They blame Obama loosing on Bush and Cheney…yeah I know it couldn’t possibly be the person Obama is running against right! If the hand count is right something really smells up in New Hampshire.
Has anyone heard anything about this in the Main stream media?
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_bruce_o__080110_obama_clinton_3a_remar.htm
Eric,
New Hampshire is going to do a hand recount of the primary votes this hasn’t happened since 1980 in New Hampshire. What if they find out Obama really won?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080111/ap_po/new_hampshire_recount_2
Okay, I don’t know who you are or what this website is all about, but I think this was the most ignorant article I have ever read. Canceling the 19th Amendment? Are you mentally unstable or something? I know you were trying to make a point- I got that. But it was a stupid way of getting there. Not every women agrees with Hillary Clinton’s ideas and will vote for her just because we want to get the male population in this country back for all of the inequality it has put us through in history. Personally, I love Obama and I think he can bring about change. But if he wanted to cancel women’s suffrage, like you say you want to, I would call him a testosterone driven bigot who shouldn’t even be participating in politics.
[…] http://blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com/2008/01/10/repeal-the-19th-amendment/ […]
What a bunch of crap. I am a Canadian and must admit that I have not followed every detail of Hillary’s life but I cannot believe that she is this monster you portray her as being.
You lump women together as if all women – or all men – are identical in thought, personality, preference, morals, etc.
People are not one dimensional as you try to paint her to be. Are you saying that she has never done a single good, honest act in her life – either as a woman, mother, wife, or politician? I think there is a serious case of MISOGYNY happening here in American politics.
In the press Obama can do no wrong – Hillary can do no right. But since this is not a landslide for Obama I would say that there are a lot of people who support and believe in Hillary Clinton.
The following comments are NOT my own. On my old blog, a man named John Thames has offered several comments. His email address is [email protected]
I have asked him twice now to post his comments on my new blog, rather than the old one. He has issued four comments. Here is the first one.
There was tremendous opposition from women themselves to men giving them the vote. Helen Kendrick Johnson in the United States was one; Gertrude Bell in England was another. When women got the vote, the first thing they did was to impose Alcohol Prohibition on the nation. That was an exercise in female statesmanship long since forgotten by feminists who claim that women will improve the world. All women are not necesarily irrational anymore than all men are necessarily sensible. But the net effect of giving women the vote has been to downgrade the intelligence of an already thoroughly dumbed down population.
Women forget that it was not their blood which was shed at Valley Forge and Yorktown winning American independence. They assume that they are entitled, merely by virtue of being one-half the population, to said right. Perhaps women should shed their blood for the next two hundred years while pondering whether conbat exempt male suffragettes should have the vote. The web site author is quite correct that there is a correlation between the gigantic growth in government spending post-1920’s and the granting of female suffrage. Women tend to believe that citizens are children in need of “Mother State” to take care of them. We would all be better off if women attended to their biological functions and stopped presuming to functions for which the vast majority of them have neither the intellectual capacity nor inclination. Those women who were intelligent in the days of the suffragettes were adamantly against the folly of granting votes to women. They have been confirmed a thousand times over since Alcohol Prohibition.
Comment # 2 from John Thames, aka [email protected]
In response to all the brainwashed feminists who think that men have been “discriminating” against them., I will pose the issue in these terms. Visualize 1950’s America where women work to support their male house husbands. (A man’s place is in the home, obviously.) Women give it all away to men in divorce court and pay massive child support and alimony to automatic custody fathers. Women fight and die for their country in Korea and Vietnam while men stay home and drink tea with the boys. Women go down with the Titanic while men and children climb on the life boats. (Women are the disposable sex; men are eternal and must be preserved.) Women work themselves into heart attacks at work so that men can outlive women by eight years and inherit 74% of the wealth of the country. I
n 1963., a revolutionary book, “The Male Mystique”. appears on the market by a closet communist, Betty Friedan, claiming that the male suburban house husband is really living in a camoflauged Auschwitz concentration camp. Men should “liberate” themselves from female oppression and pursue careers in adition to “men and babies first”. Women, who have the brains which men lack, can see that this is all utter nonsense. All the real “sex discrimination” is in favor of men. Men are not going to have all the jobs in addition to all their other goodies. Women put their foot down. They make it clear to men that men do not deserve the same pay as women because they do not have to support the opposite sex and pay child support and alimony like women do. Men will not be allowed to get away with their scam.
That is the exact nonsense which women have had poured into their numb skulls for the past forty years. It was a lie from the beginning; it is a lie now.
Comment # 3 from John Thames, aka [email protected]
“Spousal rape””is a perfect illustration of the nonsense women have been getting away with since gaining the vote. The basic idea is that a wife should be paid for her sexual services without having to perform them. It is a little bit like going to a prostitute, having the prostitute take your money and then tell you: ” I’ll keep the cash but I don’t feel like it tonight. Come back in ten days and then I will give you what you paid for.” That would be an unsuccessful prostitute indeed.
“Spousal rape” wives want one-half of everything as the price of their exclusive sexual services but do not want the obligation to perform if they are not in the mood. They are no different from the prostitute who wants the money without the performance upon demand obligation. The prostitute is, in a very real sense, a better deal than a wife. If a man goes to a prostitute, he gets what he pays for. If a man marries a “spousal rape” wife, he pays for what he doesn’t get.
Comment # 4 from John Thames, aka [email protected]
Again, these are NOT my words.
“Sexual harassment” is another illustration of the nonsense which comes from giving women “rights” and allowing them to intrude where they do not belong. Naturally, women cannot understand that their own behaviour is to blame. To illustrate that women are the problem, let us simply reverse the behaviour of the genders.
The male secretaries of the 1960’s trot off to work in their micro-mini-skirts, their see thru jock straps and their Playgirl stag ears. They screw their female bosses because that is the “in thing”, stick their tongue up every vg in sight and turn the business office into a whorehouse. Women, confronted with this obscene behaviour, quickly reach the conclusion that male secretaries are sex objects. They pat the male secretaries on the butt, tickle their testicles and hike up their skirts to demand that their male secretaries “give it” to them. The male secretaries stop licking p**** and snivel that they are being “sexually harassed”. Naturally, the idiotmale secretaries see no correlation between their own obscene behaviour and their seil-created problem.
Comment # 5 from John Thames, aka [email protected]
China is coming under some criticism for its policiy of terminating female employees when they become pregnant. But actually the Chinese are correct. Baby making is not a job function-and should not be tolerated on the company’s time. Women forget that when they first entered the job market en masse in the late 1960’s that one of the big objections to letting them in was that they would disrupt the workplace by making babies on the company’s time. They swore that motherhood was obsolete in an overcrowded world and that they would never do any such thing. They lied. The issue of “pregnancy discrimination” inverts the issue. It is actually the pregnant female who is discriminating against the other employees who must do the extra work.
>
> We should return to the old system of hiring men only, paying the man enough money to support a wife and several children, and letting the woman reproduce on her own time. That way, men can get the job done without unnecessary disruption-and the woman can do what she is supposed to be doing-making babies and raising them-in the kitchen and bedroom where all women belong.
I don’t know if any other females have posted comments, here, but I am a 34 year-old female and am seriously considering starting a movement to repeal the Nineteenth Amendment, especially if Obama is elected. Women put Clinton in office twice, and I’m afraid they may put Obama there, too.
I’m an Air Force wife and am devasted by how many liberal military wives there are. I don’t get it. I don’t think women have learned how to think. I cannot begin to explain why so many American women are liberals.
All I can hope for is that all the dumb broads who were going to vote for Hillary just because she has boobs will now vote for Palin. I love Palin, but not because she’s a woman, but because she talks like Ronald Reagan and is the best thing McCain has going for him right now.